I saw a part of the Amal Clooney interview on the NBC Today Show. I don't know what her husband George Clooney thinks, however, I clearly understand her work was to bring a case to International attention regarding ISIS without clearly stating ISIS illegally occupies the region and not clearly defining genocide as homicide/murder-unjustified killing. Jihad is seen by some Muslims as a "holy war", genocide is viewed by ISIS as justified killing.

This interviewer asked Amal if her husband George Clooney give his "blessing" regarding her work. I've never heard Amal Clooney speak of ISIS or jihadist as unjustified, unholy, or unrighteous in their actions. I've NEVER seen or heard an interviewer ask the question.

In the article written about the interview, murder, rape, and enslavement was written as a sub-section connected to some other article. I found the interview extremely interesting because the Today show host nor the Amal Clooney's interviewer mention the fact ISIS illegally occupy the region nor do they clearly define genocide as unjustified killing, homicide/murder. My position is Amal Clooney's work is to lay the foundation for this case to be used by others as means to get an "ill" intended “court ordered” military response led by ISIS partners (evildoers) to gain control of the region.

party animal - not! wrote:I don't quite understand. Are you saying that Amal Clooney is enabling Daesh to take over the region?

My position is Amal Clooney's work is to lay the foundation for this case to be used by others as means to get an "ill" intended “court ordered” military response led by ISIS partners (evildoers) to gain control of the region. Until Amay Clooney defines the occupation of ISIS in the region as illegal and genocide as murder, I will take the position her work is to present a case to be used by others to lay the foundation for a "court ordered" military response led by partners of ISIS to take over the region.

Ladybug, Doesn't genocide by definition include murder? I don't see why she has to define a term which already has a definition (and a precedent in international law). I am also not sure why you are taking her and her interviewers to task for not stating that ISIS actions are "unjustified, unholy or unrighteous." Isn't that made clear by their actions? What is the importance to you of stating this explicitly? And are you saying that she is deliberately not stating that because that lends legitimacy to ISIS and the "evildoers" and she supports them?

I am having a hard time understanding your point--I apologize if I have mischaracterized.

fava wrote:Ladybug, Doesn't genocide by definition include murder? I don't see why she has to define a term which already has a definition (and a precedent in international law). I am also not sure why you are taking her and her interviewers to task for not stating that ISIS actions are "unjustified, unholy or unrighteous." Isn't that made clear by their actions? What is the importance to you of stating this explicitly? And are you saying that she is deliberately not stating that because that lends legitimacy to ISIS and the "evildoers" and she supports them?

I am having a hard time understanding your point--I apologize if I have mischaracterized.

Fava Genocide has its own definition according to International law. If I understand correctly “genocide” is a crime punishable according to international law.

However the term genocide as defined under international law is seen as JUSTIFIED action by religious groups who believe they have the call of god to carry out the murderous actions. Meaning ISIS/IS believe they have the god given right to carry out genocide and mass murder across the globe. Even though Amal Clooney has called the actions in the region genocide, I have not seen or heard where she has stated or defined the actions of genocide as UNJUSTIFIED or the actions of ISIS/IS across the globe as criminal/murder; that is EXTREMELY important in the stand against ISIS/IS.

Also, even though Amal Clooney has mentioned genocide in interviews, if I understand correctly, the case regarding Nadia involves the rape of ISIS commanders. Meaning the crime of genocide is not included as a “charge” in the Nadia case.

Charging ISIS commanders with rape and human trafficking does NOTHING to address the UNJUSTIFIED actions of genocide imposed by ISIS, nor does it represent a fight against ISIS. For Amal Clooney to mention genocide in interviews and NOT make it clear genocide is NOT a charge in her case before court is EXTREMELY misleading.

The news reports are Amal Clooney fights the IS/ISIS. ISIS/IS views their acts of genocide and murder as a justified holy war. The truth is without National and Global news clearly defining the actions of ISIS and their partners as UNJUSTIFIED/murder and/or Council bringing a charge of genocide or mass murder before the court nothing is being done to hold ISIS/IS accountable to the crime of genocide in the region and their murderous actions taking place across the globe.

Fava, your bottom line question is: “Are you saying that she is deliberately not stating that because that lends legitimacy to ISIS and the "evildoers" and she supports them?”

My answer: I’m saying Amal Clooney’s OMMISSION that the actions of ISIS are unholy, unjustified, and unrighteous bolster the twisted/wicked belief ISIS/IS has regarding their actions across the globe. For Amal Clooney to bring a case to an International stage and omit this truth can be just as harmful, as the crimes committed by the IS/ISIS.

My position:Amal Clooney's work is to lay the foundation for this rape case to be used by "others" as means to get an "ill" intended “court ordered” military response led by ISIS partners (evildoers) to gain control of the region. Until Amal Clooney defines the occupation of ISIS in the region as illegal, genocide as unjustified, and killings as mass murder across the Globe, I will take the position her actions of omission bolster the twisted/wicked beliefs and/or actions of ISIS and their partners of evildoers.

I'm thinking there's some nitpicking going on of Amal, unfairly so. Ladybugcngc, you say that Amal's actions can be just as harmful as those of ISIS, and I'm going to completely disagree.

Amal, as a lawyer, cannot make blank accusations against people, without proof and a case. Here she has taken a case of Nadia, with specific crimes ISIS has committed against her. That case she can take to court, bring attention to it, and international notice. Nadia's case seems to include it all: murder of her family, kidnapping, imprisonment, slavery, rape. But to demand Amal to 'take on' ISIS on her own, when UN has failed to do so, powerful world leaders have failed to do so, is unfair. And if she doesn't act accordingly, then to accuse her actions being potentially as harmful as those of Isis is just really wrong. IMHO.

Amal knows her job and what she can and can't do that is all that matters. The survivors of the horrible acts want their day in court. They aren't asking for military attacks they want these people bought to trial where they can face them.Will it happen I don't know I hope some can have their justice.

fava wrote:Ladybug, Doesn't genocide by definition include murder? I don't see why she has to define a term which already has a definition (and a precedent in international law). I am also not sure why you are taking her and her interviewers to task for not stating that ISIS actions are "unjustified, unholy or unrighteous." Isn't that made clear by their actions? What is the importance to you of stating this explicitly? And are you saying that she is deliberately not stating that because that lends legitimacy to ISIS and the "evildoers" and she supports them?

I am having a hard time understanding your point--I apologize if I have mischaracterized.

Fava Genocide has its own definition according to International law. If I understand correctly “genocide” is a crime punishable according to international law.

However the term genocide as defined under international law is seen as JUSTIFIED action by religious groups who believe they have the call of god to carry out the murderous actions. Meaning ISIS/IS believe they have the god given right to carry out genocide and mass murder across the globe. Even though Amal Clooney has called the actions in the region genocide, I have not seen or heard where she has stated or defined the actions of genocide as UNJUSTIFIED or the actions of ISIS/IS across the globe as criminal/murder; that is EXTREMELY important in the stand against ISIS/IS.

Also, even though Amal Clooney has mentioned genocide in interviews, if I understand correctly, the case regarding Nadia involves the rape of ISIS commanders. Meaning the crime of genocide is not included as a “charge” in the Nadia case.

Charging ISIS commanders with rape and human trafficking does NOTHING to address the UNJUSTIFIED actions of genocide imposed by ISIS, nor does it represent a fight against ISIS. For Amal Clooney to mention genocide in interviews and NOT make it clear genocide is NOT a charge in her case before court is EXTREMELY misleading.

The news reports are Amal Clooney fights the IS/ISIS. ISIS/IS views their acts of genocide and murder as a justified holy war. The truth is without National and Global news clearly defining the actions of ISIS and their partners as UNJUSTIFIED/murder and/or Council bringing a charge of genocide or mass murder before the court nothing is being done to hold ISIS/IS accountable to the crime of genocide in the region and their murderous actions taking place across the globe.

Fava, your bottom line question is: “Are you saying that she is deliberately not stating that because that lends legitimacy to ISIS and the "evildoers" and she supports them?”

My answer: I’m saying Amal Clooney’s OMMISSION that the actions of ISIS are unholy, unjustified, and unrighteous bolster the twisted/wicked belief ISIS/IS has regarding their actions across the globe. For Amal Clooney to bring a case to an International stage and omit this truth can be just as harmful, as the crimes committed by the IS/ISIS.

My position:Amal Clooney's work is to lay the foundation for this rape case to be used by "others" as means to get an "ill" intended “court ordered” military response led by ISIS partners (evildoers) to gain control of the region. Until Amal Clooney defines the occupation of ISIS in the region as illegal, genocide as unjustified, and killings as mass murder across the Globe, I will take the position her actions of omission bolster the twisted/wicked beliefs and/or actions of ISIS and their partners of evildoers.

I believe your facts are incorrect and disagree with your conclusions. The international law defining genocide (http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm#II) in article 2 of the UN Convention on genocide does not include language about whether perpetrators see their actions as "JUSTIFIED" ( to use your all caps). Further, I would argue that at the heart of anti-genocide efforts is the belief that it is never justified. Religious or other beliefs are not a defense against a charge of genocide.

And if you listen to the speeches and read the articles, you will see that what is being alleged regarding ISIS against Nadia Murad and the Yazidis before the UN and the ICC is not merely rape, but genocide, so your understanding is incorrect.

Fava, do you understand "ISIS/IS" view their actions of genocide and murder accross the globe as a justified holy war, regardless of how it is defined in interntional law? In other words ISIS/IS believes there actions are right, justified, and above the law.

My Position: As long as Amal Clooney, Global/National news, and others fail to clearly define genocide as unholy, unrighteous, unjustified it bolster's the belief of ISIS, IS, and other religious that it is.

I'm aware genocide is mentioned in interviews, that would lead one to believe the alligation of genocide is included in the Nadia Murad case before the ICC.

Fave if genocide is included in Amal Clooney's case regarding Nadia Murad that is before the ICC I stand corrected; to my knowledge it is not.

Last edited by ladybugcngc on Wed 21 Sep 2016, 16:07; edited 1 time in total

ladybugcngc - It's fairly obvious that ISIS and it's supporters don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks of them or what definitions are put on their actions. Anyone who doesn't think as they do is an infidel, and as such has no worth and should die.

IMHO it would be more helpful if the leaders of the Muslim world, political and religious, would denounce ISIS, loudly and often, and teach their children (from birth) that all people have the right to exist and that jihad is never acceptable.

LizzyNY wrote:ladybugcngc - It's fairly obvious that ISIS and it's supporters don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks of them or what definitions are put on their actions. Anyone who doesn't think as they do is an infidel, and as such has no worth and should die.

IMHO it would be more helpful if the leaders of the Muslim world, political and religious, would denounce ISIS, loudly and often, and teach their children (from birth) that all people have the right to exist and that jihad is never acceptable.

LizzyNY wrote:ladybugcngc - It's fairly obvious that ISIS and it's supporters don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks of them or what definitions are put on their actions. Anyone who doesn't think as they do is an infidel, and as such has no worth and should die.

IMHO it would be more helpful if the leaders of the Muslim world, political and religious, would denounce ISIS, loudly and often, and teach their children (from birth) that all people have the right to exist and that jihad is never acceptable.

Yes, Lizzy, well said. I would extend that to leaders of all religions teaching and practicing tolerance for other faiths. Unfortunately, there have been atrocities throughout history committed in the name of religious faith.

Since none of us have ever spoken to her, I would not assume to know what she thinks or believes.

What I do know is she is doing the job she was asked to do. There are many other people who can do more if there is a need for it, she can only do what her client wants which is to bring these animals to court and have justice done legally.

annemarie wrote:Amal knows her job and what she can and can't do that is all that matters. The survivors of the horrible acts want their day in court. They aren't asking for military attacks they want these people bought to trial where they can face them.Will it happen I don't know I hope some can have their justice.

To view a people as unholy, unrighteous, impose a holy war, and rape them is twisted and wicked beyond discription. I pray

the ISIS commanders in Nadia Murad's case will be charged and found guilty of all charges.

annemarie wrote:Since none of us have ever spoken to her, I would not assume to know what she thinks or believes.

What I do know is she is doing the job she was asked to do. There are many other people who can do more if there is a need for it, she can only do what her client wants which is to bring these animals to court and have justice done legally.

Mel - If you're talking about the shirtwaist she wore to the UN, I liked it. I's a classic style and looked nice on her (though I wasn't crazy about the pattern).

If you're talking about the navy suit with the red tie, I'm on board. It looked like a school uniform. For some New Yorkers it will bring to mind school assemblies, where everyone had to wear a white shirt and red tie - even the girls - or be sent to the principal's office.

LizzyNY wrote:Mel - If you're talking about the shirtwaist she wore to the UN, I liked it. I's a classic style and looked nice on her (though I wasn't crazy about the pattern).

If you're talking about the navy suit with the red tie, I'm on board. It looked like a school uniform. For some New Yorkers it will bring to mind school assemblies, where everyone had to wear a white shirt and red tie - even the girls - or be sent to the principal's office.

I agree on the shirtwaist, but yes, I was talking about the red tie dress. F U G L Y !!!!

Mel - I think we're finally on the same page. I was talking about a blue suit she wore with a white shirt and red tie. I hadn't seen the red dress you were talking about. Now I have. UGH! I wonder how much they paid her to wear that mess. The "designer" should be ashamed.

annemarie - My comment nothing to do with her taste. It was about a designer who doesn't care what their client looks like in their clothes. That red dress is a hot mess, design-wise and is in no way flattering to Amal or anyone else who would wear it. The only part of it that works for Amal is the color.